Kishore Lal And Anr. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 630 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Judgment delivered on 30.01.2012

+       W.P.(C) 572/2012


KISHORE LAL AND ANR.                                               ...        Petitioners

                                              versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ...                                   Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners      :   Mr L.K.Singh
For the Respondent No.1:     Ms Prerna Shah



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 572/2012 & CM Nos.1210-1212/2012

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.2011 in O.A.

4005/2010. The petitioners had challenged the condition of having a valid driving licence

for Heavy Motor Vehicles (HMV) in order to be considered eligible for promotion to the

post of Head Constable. The petitioners are Foot Constables. Since they did not have

HMV driving licences, they were not considered eligible for promotion to the post of

Head Constable.

2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners raised two pleas. One of the pleas was that the

HMV driving licence is not an essential requirement for the nature of duties of Head

Constables. The second plea taken by the petitioners was that the direct recruits are given

the opportunity to obtain such a driving licence during their probation period whereas no

such opportunity is given to the promotees. Negating both the contentions raised on

behalf of the petitioners, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the

petitioners.

3. Insofar as the second plea is concerned, the Tribunal held that the Foot Constables,

who are to be promoted as Head Constables, also have the opportunity to obtain the HMV

driving licence during their service as Foot Constables just as the direct recruits are

required to obtain the same during their probation period. We do not find any fault with

the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal inasmuch as both the promotees and the direct

recruits would have opportunities to obtain HMV driving licences. The only difference

being that promotees would have this opportunity during their period of service as foot

constables whereas the direct recruits are given the opportunity during their probation

period as Head Constables.

4. As regards the first plea, neither the Tribunal nor this Court in exercise of powers

of judicial review, can assume the power to stipulate the eligibility conditions. This Court

can, of course, strike down eligibility conditions but, only if the eligibility conditions are

so perverse that they cannot be imposed. We see no irrationality or perversity in the

imposition of the condition that an HMV driving licence would be necessary for the

performance of duties of a Head Constable. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is that

the duties of a Head Constable include monitoring of vehicles and sometimes, on the

directions of senior officers, he may be required to drive heavy motor vehicles and he

would not be in a position to do so unless he possessed a valid driving licence for the

same. A Foot Constable is not required to move heavy motor vehicles and, therefore,

such a licence is not necessary for him.

5. In these circumstances, we feel that the respondents were fully justified in

imposing the eligibility condition of possessing an HMV driving licence for being

promoted to the post of Head Constable.

6. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the

Tribunal as we do not perceive any illegality in the same. The writ petition and pending

applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J JANUARY 30,2012 'sn'